Hello, I was wondering if it is possible to setup a LND and use it behind i2p instead of tor, as i2p clients are also nodes an implementation like this would make i2p network very interesting.
pull down to refresh
219 sats \ 7 replies \ @nullcount 21 Nov
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/6845
LND team has more interest in adding TapASS shitcoins on LN than supporting alternate anonymity transport layers.
I agree, i2P would be a great fit for LN nodes since both require running an always online server. A big reason Tor has poor performance is that you don't have to run a "Tor node" to use/abuse Tor. You can infinitely abuse other people's nodes on Tor with zero "skin in the game".
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 27 Nov
I2P has no exit nodes so you could only connect and pay I2P nodes, right?
reply
175 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullcount 27 Nov
Tor has Exit Nodes (i.e. Tor nodes that can "translate" traffic to/from a clearnet-IP address into Tor hidden traffic. However, Tor exit nodes are not used at all in LN routing.
Basically, LN has it's own "exit nodes" (i.e. LN nodes that run BOTH a hidden service address AND a clearnet address). These nodes can "translate" traffic to/from a clearnet-only node to a tor-only node for example.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/90767
So the fact that I2P has no exit nodes should not matter.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 27 Nov
Ah, I see. As an I2P-only node, I can only connect and open channels to I2P nodes but I can still pay an invoice from a clearnet node because I might be able to reach it through one of those nodes running on both networks which also forwarded clearnet gossip to me?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 27 Nov
That's how I understand it. Routing nodes would be incentivized to support all available transport layers as it increases the odds they'll help route a payment between peers which don't have the same transports enabled.
Most LN nodes are Tor-only. So the demand for anonymity layers seems strong. Additionally, clearnet is difficult/expensive to setup (especially if you don't have a dedicated-IP because you're behind the ISP's NAT).
The pleb noderunners deserve a "middleground" transport with some anonymity, easy to setup, and more performant.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger OP 27 Nov
idk, would like an answer on that too.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 27 Nov
why does i2p require always online, versus tor does not? if you have a link / ref handy.
also iiic, LN doesn't require always online. that's only for receiving, and even in that case I think there are easy workaround. ie: have a high availability bank custody node for when your phone is charging, and drain to phone immediately when phone node comes online.
I suppose another reason you might say LN requires "always online" is if you are trying to generate money by routing fees. You will get a bad reputation if you are flaky connected and no one will want to try to route through you.
any other considerations?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 27 Nov
Technically, you're right. But in practice most LN nodes that process the bulk of payments in the network are online near 24/7
An offline node (with no watchtower) is also vulnerable to being cheated by peers.
Similarly, it's not technically required for an i2p relay to always be online. Of course, it will only be usable (by yourself or others) if its online.
The biggest difference between i2p and Tor is that you don't have to run ANY server to access Tor. Just download a browser (run a local SOCKS5 proxy) and you'll be able to route traffic thru the network without helping to route other's traffic yourself. It's easy to get started with Tor, but you're sharing resources (relays) with hundreds/thousands of other users which can lead to poor performance or denial of service.
"require running always online server" -- probably not the best way to phrase it. Rather, using LN and i2p (directly) require running a server and most people will probably run that server 24/7
It is technically possible for hundreds of people to use someone else's i2p relay (instead of each running their own relay). But that's not "the norm" like it is in Tor.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 21 Nov
Unfortunately not. i2p works only for your bitcoin core node not for LN.
LN must communicate through ipv4, ipv6 or Tor. Even with ipv6 are very few using it.
My recommendation is to use a VPS + wireguard VPN tunnel to your home node and like that use the VPS public IP for your LN node. Is the best way.
If you run a public routing node, DO NOT run it with Tor. Tor with routing nodes is not a good combination. I will never connect to a Tor only public node.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Butterfinger OP 22 Nov
I disagree regarding LN+tor, I use it and will only connect to nodes tor only. The good thing is that we are free to do so as we wish.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 22 Nov
As a private node (non-routing) is OK, but when is about to do public routing is a nightmare and it should be avoided any Tor only peer.
I am talking about SERIOUS routing not just 2-3 payments/day...
Keep in mind that Tor is adding a unnecessary long response time that is crucial for LN routing nodes.
Tor is just an illusion of privacy for LN nodes.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger OP 22 Nov
well every use case may require different tools, anyway I would be very glad to have i2p integrated into LN.
reply